Obama's AIPAC Speech

[Marechal Ney]

I think this speech deserves a thread of its own. Obama just gave his speech to AIPAC. At first, he was just saying dozens and dozens of extremely pro-Israel remarks. Later, however, he would try to support his call for a return to 1967 borders. And, the point that I am most dissapointed with, was Obama's call against using the UN to facilitate negotiations.



http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-u-s-demands-hamas-recognize-israel-s-right-to-exist-1.363351


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...7c8G_blog.html

Thoughts?

[kentuckybandit]

Just his usual strategy here. Say what ever you have to, depending on who your audience is. It worked great when he was trying to get elected, but people will eventually start to catch on.

[Menelik_I]

Just his usual strategy here. Say what ever you have to, depending on who your audience is. It worked great when he was trying to get elected, but people will eventually start to catch on.

^This.

[Armenum]

Politicians usually don't have the luxury for principles. They say and do whatever it takes to get re-elected. It's disappointing seeing so many people upset with Obama's remarks regarding the 1967 borders. As a mediator, Israel and Israeli groups should understand that pressure needs to be enacted on both sides by US (though having Israel conform to 1967 isn't really a large concession or heavy pressure).

[Menelik_I]

Politicians usually don't have the luxury for principles. They say and do whatever it takes to get re-elected.

Dumping Israel under the bus for this egocentric quest isn't such a light thing ... there are things greater than Obama worthless ego.

It's disappointing seeing so many people upset with Obama's remarks regarding the 1967 borders. As a mediator, Israel and Israeli groups should understand that pressure needs to be enacted on both sides by US (though having Israel conform to 1967 isn't really a large concession or heavy pressure).

By Stating 1967's as the base around which the peace ought to negotiated Obama undercut the Israelis, which now doesn't have anything to offer the Palestinians in exchange of peace, the ''right to return'' isn't going to happen ... an IPod with Obama speeches ?

Obama could have taken a clue from Reagon on this one :

“In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.”
— President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1982

Cessation of violence is the minimum for Israelis, either a demilitarization of Gaza/WB or Israeli bases in the Jordan banks, to even consider further concessions, which can't be achieved thanks to the Harvard genius.

[Armenum]

Dumping Israel under the bus for this egocentric quest isn't such a light thing ... there are things greater than Obama worthless ego.

Why is it dumping Israel under the bus? The 1967 lines have often been part of the negotiations, it just hasn't been often explicitly said by US leaders.

By Stating 1967's as the base around which the peace ought to negotiated Obama undercut the Israelis, which now doesn't have anything to offer the Palestinians in exchange of peace, the ''right to return'' isn't going to happen ... an IPod with Obama speeches ?

One would expect in a peace treaty, for both sides to be comfortable to the situation of peace. Now if Palestinians are stupid enough to attack after a historic peace deal which creates for them an official state with international recognition, then Israel would have every right to retaliate, and I'm sure the retaliation would be more punishing.

Let's not forget, pressing matters such as the status of Jerusalem weren't voiced in the speech.

[Menelik_I]

One would expect in a peace treaty, for both sides to be comfortable to the situation of peace. Now if Palestinians are stupid enough to attack after a historic peace deal which creates for them an official state with international recognition, then Israel would have every right to retaliate, and I'm sure the retaliation would be more punishing.

After Gaza I don't think the Israelis would be stupid enough to make West Bank an amateur rocket centre too.

Let's not forget, pressing matters such as the status of Jerusalem weren't voiced in the speech.

Hint : a big chunk of Jerusalem is outside of 1967 lines ... Looks like Harvard genius have single handily blown off all need for negotiation.

[Acco]

Hint : a big chunk of Jerusalem is outside of 1967 lines ... Looks like Harvard genius have single handily blown off all need for negotiation.

Okay, so the 1967 borders of Jerusalem are not acceptable and can be worked out. What about the rest of the borders?

[Armenum]

After Gaza I don't think the Israelis would be stupid enough to make West Bank an amateur rocket centre too.

That's why peace deal won't happen with a group like Hamas in power - it will only happen when both sides are comfortable with the parties they are dealing with.

Hint : a big chunk of Jerusalem is outside of 1967 lines ... Looks like Harvard genius have single handily blown off all need for negotiation.

In my view, Jerusalem should be made an international city-state, that would be controlled by Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Similar to Vatican City (though more complex in its ruling of course).

[justicar5]

Dumping Israel under the bus for this egocentric quest isn't such a light thing ... there are things greater than Obama worthless ego.



By Stating 1967's as the base around which the peace ought to negotiated Obama undercut the Israelis, which now doesn't have anything to offer the Palestinians in exchange of peace, the ''right to return'' isn't going to happen ... an IPod with Obama speeches ?
.

1967 should be the base line , with 1947 as the desirable outcome. If living under hostile artillery (and having it regularly used) is good enough for palestinians it's certtainly good enough for israelis. Oh and either the palstinians gain a right to return and a military or israel gives up it's right to return and the IDF.

[Menelik_I]

1967 should be the base line , with 1947 as the desirable outcome. If living under hostile artillery (and having it regularly used) is good enough for palestinians it's certtainly good enough for israelis.

The moral inversion here is priceless ... the ones shooting rockets at random on towns are the Palestinians, for your information.

They are also the ones with a genocidal plan for that matter.

Oh and either the palstinians gain a right to return and a military or israel gives up it's right to return and the IDF.

What they need a military for ? To have them :wub: all day long ? Do we also give the Palestinians nukes will we are at it ?

[irontaino]

What they need a military for ?

To defend themselves of course, they have an aggressive, powerful, nuclear armed neighbor that has no respect for boundaries and a massive case of paranoia.

[justicar5]

1)The moral inversion here is priceless ... the ones shooting rockets at random on towns are the Palestinians, for your information.


2)What they need a military for ? To have them :wub: all day long ? Do we also give the Palestinians nukes will we are at it ?

1) And the israels are launching random airstrikes, and have a history of doing so at the start of negotiations and maintaining attack through out the talks.

2)To defend themselves, the same reason any state needs a military, they will have one rampantly expansionist neighbour with a love of chemical weapons and bombarding densly packed civilian housing. Oh and of building illegal settlements, murdering the previous occupants of the land and defending the murderers with the full force of the military. If anyone did what the Israelis are doing to the palestinians to westerners the vengeance of the world would be swift and terrible, but apparently palestinians are sub-human so mass killing and land theft is fine.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

1967 should be the base line , with 1947 as the desirable outcome. If living under hostile artillery (and having it regularly used) is good enough for palestinians it's certtainly good enough for israelis. Oh and either the palstinians gain a right to return and a military or israel gives up it's right to return and the IDF.

It's funny how the ardent pro-Palestinians are mcuh more ambitious and detached from reality than the Palestinians themselves. The '67 line is the maximum theoretical extent of the future Palestinian state, and it's quite likely to be quite smaller than that because they'll eventually make concessions.
And yeah, the Palestinians will get their right to return - to the Palestinian state.

[Simon Cashmere]

Politicians usually don't have the luxury for principles. They say and do whatever it takes to get re-elected. It's disappointing seeing so many people upset with Obama's remarks regarding the 1967 borders. As a mediator, Israel and Israeli groups should understand that pressure needs to be enacted on both sides by US (though having Israel conform to 1967 isn't really a large concession or heavy pressure).

It wasn't always the case. The founding fathers put together the most principled and enlightened document I think has ever been seen since the beginning of time, politics and human history. Those sort of people though, tend not to get involved in politics anymore. The leaders of business and politics now are slick talking career psychopaths.

In my opinion, to suggest that Obama is "throwing Isreal under the bus" when he has clearly supported Isreal all throughout his presidency is nothing short of asinine.

He is throwing Israel under the bus, and remember Obama comes from hard core leftie background, that *hate* Israel with a passion. There is no way that Obama jettisoned that belief upon entering office. Obama has been directing the agencies of the United States to bend towards some feelgood pro-Islam project, everything he does is pro-Islam. He hopes to kill Israel with a 1000 cuts. Syria and Egypt were previously stable areas that were not likely to invade Israel. They are both likely to be taken over by Muslim Brotherhood governments. After that point, Israel may again be facing a war on two fronts. If Jordan falls to the Muslim Brotherhood, it will be 3. It could be 4 if Iran decides Hezbollah needs to push forward as well.

Either this is staggering incompetence or a deliberate plan. He said that it was in the national interests of the United States for Gaddafi to fall - really - well who is he going to be replaced by? Another Muslim Brotherhood government. Why is that in the interests of the united states. Obama has either helped or stood idly by as the deliberate policy of propelling Arab strongmen into power to keep Islamic clerics out of power has been unravelled.

He better hope Saudi Arabia doesnt fall.

He's not a secret muslim, but he would not be doing anything different if he was.

[Armenum]

It wasn't always the case. The founding fathers put together the most principled and enlightened document I think has ever been seen since the beginning of time, politics and human history. Those sort of people though, tend not to get involved in politics anymore. The leaders of business and politics now are slick talking career psychopaths.

Well, they I wouldn't go as far to say that they are psychopaths, but they definitely need to know how to manipulate people via slick communication.

[Simon Cashmere]

Well, they I wouldn't go as far to say that they are psychopaths, but they definitely need to know how to manipulate people via slick communication.

how many do you know? I'm talking about the textbook definition, not the Hollywood definition:

Psychopathy ( /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) is a term which, until the 1980s, formally referred to a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.

The politicians I've met, can smile and shake hands - but have absolutely not a care for anyone else's welfare, well-being, and will crush destroy, ruin anyone or anything that gets in their way without a moment's hesitation. The only thing that comes first always, is them, but they are very good at deceiving most around them with the right words. It's rare you meet any with an actual conscience or whose raison d'etre is not venality.

I don't care what side of politics you are on either, Left, Right or in the Centre. Most of those who actually have morals and principles are labelled 'eccentric'.

[Gromovnik]

Netanyahu promised some more Goofy time if Obama continued with his act.

[Menelik_I]

Netanyahu promised some more Goofy time if Obama continued with his act.

Obama surely can defend himself reading law reviews

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Gromovnik]

I'd pay to watch that.